Awful or Amazing?
Awful or Amazing? Fathoming Changes to the English Language
Sarah Rothman, Class of 2015
Ware College House
March 29, 2015
Sarah Rothman studies environmental science, with a focus in biology; she has explored this interest outside the classroom through leading the Ware Sustainability Committee, conducting research for the National Park Service, and volunteering at Antelope Park in Zimbabwe. Sarah has also studied forensic science at the University of Otago in New Zealand.
The student took a few moments to peruse her notes before the exam was distributed. Show of hands: who considers this sentence to be incorrect? If the Junto Society were the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, about 66% of you would be raising your hands if this were 1988, 58% were this 1999, and down to 48% were this 2011 (Curzan, 2014). Peruse, in its original definition, meant to read carefully, which would make the above sentence oxymoronic, since she only took “a few moments” to read her notes. However, most people in 2015 would think this sentence fine, since peruse is popularly used to mean skim or scan. The American Heritage Dictionary compromised by including both definitions because, in reality, it is not unusual for one word to have two opposing meanings.
In fact, a thorough perusal of the title of this paper reveals similar potential confusion. Awful initially meant full of awe or admirable, and was presumably used to describe something beneficial and desirable. However, a quick perusal by the modern reader would have it mean bad or unappealing. Amazing, on the other hand, is the current way of saying incredible or marvelous, although its original use was to connote perplexing or befuddling. Furthermore, fathom was originally a unit of measurement that transformed to mean contemplate or think deeply about, in other words, get to the bottom of, since it was used to measure the depths of the ocean. So what is this paper really about? Measuring changes to the English language, and determining whether those changes are great or bewildering? Or thinking deeply about whether changes to the English language are terrible or wonderful? Interestingly, both interpretations make sense, but only so long as we keep our frame of reference consistent.
Our understanding of the title of this paper depends upon the context of our time and culture. The English language is malleable. Throughout time, modifications to our language have received both condemnation and praise, which begs the question, when is something wrong and when is it just different? One way to judge the value of an alteration is to assess whether it helps or hurts effective communication, which is, ultimately, the reason for language. So we ask, does this change act as an aid or a barrier to comprehension?
Changes can arise in several forms: acronyms or abbreviations can be used in place of full words, old words can produce new amalgamations, or new words can be created altogether. In each situation, mode of communication (spoken vs. written) and time dictate whether a change is widely perceived as acceptable or unacceptable. This is important because our approval or disapproval of transforming language affects more than the dictionary—language has the power to shape our society as much as our society shapes language. This interplay is never so apparent as when words remain the same but their corresponding definitions change. Overall, we find that the mutability of the English language, in both form and function, holds society together as we progress.
Since our primary lingual goal is understanding each other, we ought to love acronyms, the champions of quick, effective communication. For instance, acronyms are essential in the military and medical fields, in which saving a few seconds while delivering a message could mean saving a life. For example, saying an incoming patient to a field hospital needs an OR for a GSW tells others clearly and quickly that the patient needs an operating room for a gunshot wound. Moreover, acronyms are not reserved for professional settings—a layperson uses the same practice in the case of emergency, shouting Does anyone know CPR? rather than Does anyone know cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Even when there is no emergency, it is simply more convenient and less bulky to say or write FBI in lieu of Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example.
This preference tends to disappear, however, when technology is involved. In early texting where the abc key had to be pressed three times to get the letter c, acronyms saved time, and yet were generally avoided in speech. Older generations that did not jump on the instant messaging bandwagon, and younger generations that now have full keyboards where the letter c is its own button, have less need for acronyms like brb, nmjc, or idk (be right back, not much just chilling, or I don’t know, respectively). The use of these acronyms now, especially in spoken language, would delay comprehension more often than accelerate it.
Abbreviations are similar to acronyms in usage in that they too can provide more understanding in less time or space. As students, we frequently employ abbreviations: one is much more likely to hear students proclaim themselves a soc, chem, anthro, psych, or bio major than a sociology, chemistry, anthropology, psychology, or biology major.
However, abbreviations cannot always stand in so smoothly for the extended word. The Oxford English Dictionary lists adv. as an abbreviation for adverb, advance, adventure, advice, and advocate (and their associated forms). It’s no wonder adv. is not frequently used—if I said, I need an adv., my listeners would not know whether I needed a descriptor, a raise, a quest, a bit of guidance, or a sponsor. The use of the abbreviation would be a source of confusion.
While acronyms and abbreviations aid effective communication through simplification, amalgamations improve comprehension by more completely expressing a complex idea. For example, most of us have experienced the sensation of being so hungry, we are angry. It is a state of being beyond mere hunger, so that the adjective hungry alone would not suffice, and to only say we are angry does not tell our audience why. To say we are hangry, however, conveys in one word that we are grumpy because we have not eaten in a while. The combination of these two adjectives creates a story that neither could alone, and implies a causation that saying each word sequentially but independently may not. By crafting a new word, we are elevating our audience’s understanding of our message.
While hangry may be a more accurate way to describe our mood than either hungry or angry separately, amalgamations are not always so elucidating. Irregardless, for example, a blend between irrespective and regardless, is puzzling. Presumably, a user of irregardless means both irrespective and regardless, synonyms for nevertheless and notwithstanding. However, the addition of the prefix ir- to regardless actually negates the intended meaning, as ir- means non- or not. The final amalgamation, then, translates to with regard to; it overturns and contradicts the intention, rather than contributing to the understanding each word could bring alone. In this way, amalgamations sometimes degrade an audience’s comprehension.
As our society advances, old words in new forms are not always enough; new words must be invented to describe new ideas. Consider the advent of the internet, which has brought us words such as google (both as a noun and a verb). This is not to say that search engines would not exist without the word google, but rather that this new word has come to clarify and specify a new action. To look up could be physical or digital, and we would need more context to discern the true meaning, but there is no ambiguity about what happened when something was googled. To add clout to the idea of new words, think of internet-born phrases the same as any sub-specialty terminology; nearly every professional field has built its own vocabulary as necessitated by amassing knowledge. For example, the use of the word invasives in the fields of ecology and biology has come to specify alien species that cause harm to an ecosystem. Microsoft Word does not recognize invasive as a noun, only as a verb—traditionally, the noun of invasive would be invader. However, this new word, invasives, serves a role invaders does not, because it immediately makes clear both the context and the subject matter.
Of course, not all new words bolster comprehension. How many people here are familiar with the phrase on fleek? Fleek is essentially a stand-in for point, as in the expression on point, which is used to convey that something met high standards. On fleek does not serve to address unique situations that on point cannot be applied to—they are interchangeable phrases. If it does not serve to further clarify, and is not a word most people are familiar with, than its use in conversation or writing is more likely to cause confusion than to increase precision.
Thus far, there have been two recurring factors determining whether a change is helpful or hurtful to comprehension: form of communication and time. The value of an acronym or abbreviation is often contingent on whether it is spoken in conversation or formally written down. The use of GSW and anthro is generally more accepted verbally—the common convention would have us write the original, full words—while brb and adv. are relegated to type, not speech. Why are we so insistent on isolating different forms of language in theory when they are inseparable in practice? As an example, the contraction could’ve (which itself is highly contested as an acceptable word) sounds like could of spoken aloud, leading many to write the phrase this way, rather than the original could have. Our efforts to maintain the written word separately and, usually, more formally, than spoken word reveal what we consider to be more important in our society; the common view is that slang in speech is a new style, but slang in writing is sloppy. We treasure the written word, or, at least, our current form of the written word, which will inevitably continue to change as it has already changed to develop into our modern version.
Time is the greatest factor in altering the English language as well as our acceptance of those changes. After all, many of the words we take for granted today were invented by Shakespeare, such as generous, radiance, or undress, and were likely received with as much surprise and hesitation in 16th century as bestie, cunting, or selfie were when they were added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2014. Often, it is the addition of a word to the dictionary that ends a debate over whether or not a word is ‘real’. It is ironic that the general public uses the dictionary to settle the score, since the dictionary uses the general public to make decisions about new additions. Anne Curzan, a language historian, English professor, and member of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, explains that “[a new word] gets in because we use it and we keep using it, and dictionary editors are paying attention to us. If you're thinking, ‘But that lets all of us decide what words mean,’ I would say, ‘Yes it does, and it always has’” (Curzan, 2014).
We no longer think or act the same way as we did 1,000, 100, or even 10 years ago, so we need to update our language to keep up with our culture. The Dyke March is an exemplary movement committed to this modernization. Their mission statement explains that “the dyke march is inherently about reclaiming the word dyke. The use of that politically charged word is purposeful; it’s about us harnessing all of the power that word holds and empowering ourselves, families, lovers and friends” (Calgary Dyke March, 2015). Similar efforts are being undertaken to change our usage of nigga, tranny, and fag, among others. Proponents of movements to reclaim slurs reason that there is no power inherent in a given word; the power comes from the hateful definition it is ascribed. Therefore, by changing the common definition, we remove that word as a weapon in our vocabulary and continue to move toward equality by communicating with compassionate words only.
It should be noted, however, that changing language to reflect our current society might not always help us in this progressive goal. Feminism, as we discussed earlier this semester, has transformed from its original definition of male and female equality, and is now commonly thought to be a movement for female superiority. In this case, preserving the original meaning, rather than changing it, is what is necessary for the movement to succeed.
For better or for worse, it is the popular definition, the common slang, the most frequently used acronyms and abbreviations, that are ‘real.’ Most of the time, when a change is a barrier to understanding rather than an aid, it is only because it is not yet commonly enough used; when the change becomes widespread, it means that most people understand it. This unity within a society with respect to language is crucial, because even if the new definition is contrary to the original, so long as the majority of people are in agreement, we will still achieve effective communication.
One must be careful not to overlook this qualifier: the majority of people. Not everything an individual says or writes is correct just because language is flexible. As Oliver Kamm, an editorial writer and columnist for the Times of London explains, “it is possible, of course, for us to make errors…But it is not possible for everyone, or the majority of educated users of the language, to be wrong on the same point at the same time. If it is in general use, then that is what the language is” (Kamm, 2015). In other words, as long as everyone is wrong, everyone is right.